Search Results

Search found 3325 results on 133 pages for 'route'.

Page 41/133 | < Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >

  • Cisco 877 as PPPoA/PPPoE bridge (no routing) - how to make it listen to IP for management?

    - by Ingmar Hupp
    I have a Cisco 877 configured to bridge ADSL with PPPoA to PPPoE on Vlan1. This works fine, but in this mode the only way I can configure the Cisco is via the serial console. I'd like to have the Cisco also listen on an IP address so I can telnet/ssh into it. I think the right way to go about this would be via bridge irb, but I'm not sure exactly how (or if that's even the right direction). IOS is 12.4T and my current config (cut down to essentials) is: no ip routing no ip cef ! ! interface ATM0 no ip address no ip route-cache no atm ilmi-keepalive pvc 0/38 encapsulation aal5snap ! dsl operating-mode auto bridge-group 1 ! ! interface Vlan1 no ip address no ip route-cache bridge-group 1 Just setting an IP address on Vlan1 didn't have the desired effect, but surely this must be possible somehow (the Draytek Vigor 120 even does it by default).

    Read the article

  • Why does iChat Server keep connecting to proxy.eu.jabber.org?

    - by Tom Hamming
    I have OS X Server 10.6.5 running on a new Mac Mini (server model), serving several functions among which is iChat Server (iChat and Pidgin on Windows as clients). In the iChat log in Server Admin, I kept seeing entries about connecting to proxy.eu.jabber.org. It's for our office network and I wasn't excited about external access to it, so I disabled server-to-server XMPP federation and now the connections just time out. But why is it doing that in the first place? Sample log entry: (datetime) (servername)jabberd/resolver[portnum]: [xmpp-server._tcp.proxy.eu.jabber.org resolved to 208.68.163.220:5269 (300 seconds to live) then: sending dialback auth request for route '(full server hostname)/proxy.eu.jabber.org' A couple minutes later, it comes back with: dialback for outgoing route '(full server hostname)/proxy.eu.jabber.org' timed out

    Read the article

  • Setting a Static IP Running FreeBSD8 in VirtualBox hosted on Windows 7

    - by gvkv
    I'm using VirtualBox on Windows 7 (host) to run a FreeBSD (guest) based web server. I`ve assigned a static ip of 192.168.80. 1 to the (virtualized) NIC which is run in bridged mode. The problem is that when I ping an external server (such as google.com) I get a No route to host error: dimetro# ping google.com PING google.com (66.249.90.104): 56 data bytes ping: sendto: No route to host ... I can ping the BSD server from both another virtualized machine and my host machine and from the server, I can ping everything on the network. The router ip is 192.168.1.1/16. ADDENDUM: I have the following lines in /etc/rc.conf on the BSD VM to configure networking: defaultrouter="192.168.1.1" ifconfig_em0="inet 192.168.80.1 netmask 255.255.0.0"

    Read the article

  • How to configure machines in a public subnet with two gateways?

    - by Shtééf
    We have a single public /24 subnet, with a BGP router as the primary gateway. Now I'm interested in configuring a second router for redundancy. How do I deal with multiple gateways on the servers in our public subnet? I found some other questions related to multiple gateways that seem to deal with NAT set-ups. In my situation, the servers all have public routed IP-addresses. So from what I can tell, it doesn't really matter which route incoming or outgoing packets take. But I figure the servers need some way of telling when one of the gateways is down, and route around it? Is this accomplished with protocols such as OSPF? And do I need to deploy this on all my servers?

    Read the article

  • No Internet access while being connected to VPN using Cisco VPN Client 5.

    - by szeldon
    Hi, I have an access to corporate VPN using Cisco VPN Client 5.0.00:0340, but when I'm connected to it, I don't have an Internet access. I'm using Windows XP SP3. As it was suggested here http://forums.speedguide.net/showthread.php?t=209167 , I tried to enable "Allow local LAN Access" but it doesn't work. I also tried a second solution - deleting entry using "route" command, but it didn't help. I used "route delete 192.168.100.222". It's a third day of my attempts to solve this issue and I don't have an idea what else to do. I'm not very experienced in VPN stuff, but I know something about networking. Basing on my knowledge, I think that it's theoretically possible to achieve Internet access using my local network and only corporate stuff to be routed using VPN connection. I think that theoretically this should look like this: every IP being inside by corporation - VPN interface IP every other IP - my ethernet interface I've tried many possibilities of how to change those routes, but neither of them work. I'd really appreciate any help. My route configuration before connecting to VPN: =========================================================================== Interface List 0x1 ........................... MS TCP Loopback interface 0x2 ...00 c0 a8 de 79 01 ...... Atheros AR5006EG Wireless Network Adapter - Teefer2 Miniport 0x10005 ...02 00 4c 4f 4f 50 ...... Microsoft Loopback Card 0x160003 ...00 17 42 31 0e 16 ...... Marvell Yukon 88E8055 PCI-E Gigabit Ethernet Controller - Teefer2 Miniport =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Active routes: Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metrics 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.101.254 192.168.100.222 10 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.10 10.0.0.10 30 10.0.0.10 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 30 10.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.0.0.10 10.0.0.10 30 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1 192.168.100.0 255.255.254.0 192.168.100.222 192.168.100.222 1 192.168.100.222 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1 192.168.100.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.100.222 192.168.100.222 1 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 10.0.0.10 10.0.0.10 3 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 192.168.100.222 192.168.100.222 1 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.0.0.10 10.0.0.10 1 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.100.222 192.168.100.222 1 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.100.222 2 1 Default gateway: 192.168.101.254. =========================================================================== My route configuration after connection to VPN: =========================================================================== Interface List 0x1 ........................... MS TCP Loopback interface 0x2 ...00 c0 a8 de 79 01 ...... Atheros AR5006EG Wireless Network Adapter - Teefer2 Miniport 0x10005 ...02 00 4c 4f 4f 50 ...... Microsoft Loopback Card 0x160003 ...00 17 42 31 0e 16 ...... Marvell Yukon 88E8055 PCI-E Gigabit Ethernet Controller - Teefer2 Miniport 0x170006 ...00 05 9a 3c 78 00 ...... Cisco Systems VPN Adapter - Teefer2 Miniport =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Active routes: Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metrics 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.251.6.1 10.251.6.51 1 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.10 10.0.0.10 30 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.251.6.1 10.251.6.51 10 10.0.0.10 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 30 10.1.150.10 255.255.255.255 192.168.101.254 192.168.100.222 1 10.251.6.0 255.255.255.0 10.251.6.51 10.251.6.51 20 10.251.6.51 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 20 10.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.0.0.10 10.0.0.10 30 10.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.251.6.51 10.251.6.51 20 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1 192.168.100.0 255.255.254.0 192.168.100.222 192.168.100.222 10 192.168.100.0 255.255.254.0 10.251.6.1 10.251.6.51 10 192.168.100.222 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 10 192.168.100.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.100.222 192.168.100.222 10 213.158.197.124 255.255.255.255 192.168.101.254 192.168.100.222 1 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 10.0.0.10 10.0.0.10 30 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 10.251.6.51 10.251.6.51 20 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 192.168.100.222 192.168.100.222 10 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.0.0.10 10.0.0.10 1 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.251.6.51 10.251.6.51 1 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.100.222 192.168.100.222 1 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.100.222 2 1 Default gateway: 10.251.6.1. ===========================================================================

    Read the article

  • Routing application traffic through specific interface

    - by UnicornsAndRainbows
    Hello All! First question here, so please go easy: I have a debian linux 5.0 server with two public interfaces. I would like to route outbound traffic from one instance of an application via one interface and the second instance through the second interface. There are some challenges: both instances of the application use the same protocol both instances of the application can access the entire internet (can't route based on dest network) I can't change the code of the application I don't think a typical approach to load balancing all traffic is going to work well, because there are relatively few destination servers being accessed in the outbound traffic, and all traffic would really need to be distributed pretty evenly across these relatively few servers. I could probably run two virtualized servers on the box and bind each of them to a different external ip, but I'm looking for a simpler solution, maybe using iproute or iptables? Any ideas for me? Thanks in advance - and I'm happy to answer any questions.

    Read the article

  • Windows 2008, 2 NICS, routing problem

    - by Srodriguez
    Dear all, I've some questions regarding basic routing, can't seem to relate to other questions posted in this site. My architecture: Windows 2008 server with 2 nics in the server. NIC1: IP 10.198.6.xxx, submask 255.255.252.0, gateway 10.198.4.xxx NIC2: IP 192.168.168.xxx, submask 255.255.255, no gateway defined both NICS are just connected to two separate switches, with other computers. I want to be able that all the requests that have a destination of 192.168.168.xxx are redirected to the NIC2, all the other to the NIC1. I know it's possible to do it with the route command, but normally we have to specify a gateway? (route ADD 192.168.168.0 MASK 255.255.255.0 ???) How can this be archived? Thanks a lot for your help!

    Read the article

  • Why is Windows 7 announcing itself as an IPv6 router?

    - by Paul
    I have a 6in4 ipv6 connection from a linux box to a broker. I use gogoc to establish the connection to the broker, and radvd to advertise the route to clients on the network. All this appears to work, the problem is that I have a Windows 7 machine on the same network, and it is advertising itself as a ipv6 router. Which it is not. This is output from radvdump: # # radvd configuration generated by radvdump 1.8.5 # based on Router Advertisement from [snip]:ea2 # received by interface eth0 # interface eth0 { AdvSendAdvert on; # Note: {Min,Max}RtrAdvInterval cannot be obtained with radvdump AdvManagedFlag on; AdvOtherConfigFlag on; AdvReachableTime 0; AdvRetransTimer 0; AdvCurHopLimit 0; AdvDefaultLifetime 1800; AdvHomeAgentFlag off; AdvDefaultPreference medium; AdvSourceLLAddress on; AdvLinkMTU 1500; }; # End of interface definition # # radvd configuration generated by radvdump 1.8.5 # based on Router Advertisement from [snip]:1121 # received by interface eth0 # interface eth0 { AdvSendAdvert on; # Note: {Min,Max}RtrAdvInterval cannot be obtained with radvdump AdvManagedFlag off; AdvOtherConfigFlag off; AdvReachableTime 0; AdvRetransTimer 0; AdvCurHopLimit 64; AdvDefaultLifetime 1800; AdvHomeAgentFlag off; AdvDefaultPreference medium; AdvLinkMTU 1280; AdvSourceLLAddress on; prefix [snip]::/64 { AdvValidLifetime 86400; AdvPreferredLifetime 14400; AdvOnLink on; AdvAutonomous on; AdvRouterAddr off; }; # End of prefix definition }; # End of interface definition And I end up with two routes: $ ip -6 route [snip]::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 expires 86117sec fe80::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 default via [snip]:ea2 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 1024 expires 1492sec default via [snip]:1121 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 1024 expires 1506sec The ea2 route is to the Windows7 box. It doesn't have a router installed, and doesn't have any tun/tap interfaces. I can't see why it is doing this. I could disable ipv6 on it, but I want it to be a client, not a router. Update: The IP Helper service (Provides tunnel connectivity using IPv6 transition technologies (6to4, ISATAP, Port Proxy, and Teredo), and IP-HTTPS. If this service is stopped, the computer will not have the enhanced connectivity benefits that these technologies offer.) seems to be the culprit, as if it is stopped, I don't get the routes advertised. So my question is now more specifically "why is IP Helper announcing routes?".

    Read the article

  • Help me upgrade my pf.conf for OpenBSD 4.7

    - by polemon
    I'm planning on upgrading my OpenBSD to 4.7 (from 4.6) and as you may or may not know, they changed the syntax for pf.conf. This is the relevant portion from the upgrade guide: pf(4) NAT syntax change As described in more detail in this mailing list post, PF's separate nat/rdr/binat (translation) rules have been replaced with actions on regular match/filter rules. Simple rulesets may be converted like this: nat on $ext_if from 10/8 -> ($ext_if) rdr on $ext_if to ($ext_if) -> 1.2.3.4 becomes match out on $ext_if from 10/8 nat-to ($ext_if) match in on $ext_if to ($ext_if) rdr-to 1.2.3.4 and... binat on $ext_if from $web_serv_int to any -> $web_serv_ext becomes match on $ext_if from $web_serv_int to any binat-to $web_serv_ext nat-anchor and/or rdr-anchor lines, e.g. for relayd(8), ftp-proxy(8) and tftp-proxy(8), are no longer used and should be removed from pf.conf(5), leaving only the anchor lines. Translation rules relating to these and spamd(8) will need to be adjusted as appropriate. N.B.: Previously, translation rules had "stop at first match" behaviour, with binat being evaluated first, followed by nat/rdr depending on direction of the packet. Now the filter rules are subject to the usual "last match" behaviour, so care must be taken with rule ordering when converting. pf(4) route-to/reply-to syntax change The route-to, reply-to, dup-to and fastroute options in pf.conf move to filteropts; pass in on $ext_if route-to (em1 192.168.1.1) from 10.1.1.1 pass in on $ext_if reply-to (em1 192.168.1.1) to 10.1.1.1 becomes pass in on $ext_if from 10.1.1.1 route-to (em1 192.168.1.1) pass in on $ext_if to 10.1.1.1 reply-to (em1 192.168.1.1) Now, this is my current pf.conf: # $OpenBSD: pf.conf,v 1.38 2009/02/23 01:18:36 deraadt Exp $ # # See pf.conf(5) for syntax and examples; this sample ruleset uses # require-order to permit mixing of NAT/RDR and filter rules. # Remember to set net.inet.ip.forwarding=1 and/or net.inet6.ip6.forwarding=1 # in /etc/sysctl.conf if packets are to be forwarded between interfaces. ext_if="pppoe0" int_if="nfe0" int_net="192.168.0.0/24" polemon="192.168.0.10" poletopw="192.168.0.12" segatop="192.168.0.20" table <leechers> persist set loginterface $ext_if set skip on lo match on $ext_if all scrub (no-df max-mss 1440) altq on $ext_if priq bandwidth 950Kb queue {q_pri, q_hi, q_std, q_low} queue q_pri priority 15 queue q_hi priority 10 queue q_std priority 7 priq(default) queue q_low priority 0 nat-anchor "ftp-proxy/*" rdr-anchor "ftp-proxy/*" nat on $ext_if from !($ext_if) -> ($ext_if) rdr pass on $int_if proto tcp to port ftp -> 127.0.0.1 port 8021 rdr pass on $ext_if proto tcp to port 2080 -> $segatop port 80 rdr pass on $ext_if proto tcp to port 2022 -> $segatop port 22 rdr pass on $ext_if proto tcp to port 4000 -> $polemon port 4000 rdr pass on $ext_if proto tcp to port 6600 -> $polemon port 6600 anchor "ftp-proxy/*" block pass on $int_if queue(q_hi, q_pri) pass out on $ext_if queue(q_std, q_pri) pass out on $ext_if proto icmp queue q_pri pass out on $ext_if proto {tcp, udp} to any port ssh queue(q_hi, q_pri) pass out on $ext_if proto {tcp, udp} to any port http queue(q_std, q_pri) #pass out on $ext_if proto {tcp, udp} all queue(q_low, q_hi) pass out on $ext_if proto {tcp, udp} from <leechers> queue(q_low, q_std) pass in on $ext_if proto tcp to ($ext_if) port ident queue(q_hi, q_pri) pass in on $ext_if proto tcp to ($ext_if) port ssh queue(q_hi, q_pri) pass in on $ext_if proto tcp to ($ext_if) port http queue(q_hi, q_pri) pass in on $ext_if inet proto icmp all icmp-type echoreq queue q_pri If someone has experience with porting the 4.6 pf.conf to 4.7, please help me do the correct changes. OK, this is how far I've got: I commented out nat-anchor and rdr-anchor, as describted in the guide: #nat-anchor "ftp-proxy/*" #rdr-anchor "ftp-proxy/*" And this is how I've "converted" the rdr rules: #nat on $ext_if from !($ext_if) -> ($ext_if) match out on $ext_if from !($ext_if) nat-to ($ext_if) #rdr pass on $int_if proto tcp to port ftp -> 127.0.0.1 port 8021 match in on $int_if proto tcp to port ftp rdr-to 127.0.0.1 port 8021 #rdr pass on $ext_if proto tcp to port 2080 -> $segatop port 80 match in on $ext_if proto tcp tp port 2080 rdr-to $segatop port 80 #rdr pass on $ext_if proto tcp to port 2022 -> $segatop port 22 match in on $ext_if proto tcp tp port 2022 rdr-to $segatop port 22 rdr pass on $ext_if proto tcp to port 4000 -> $polemon port 4000 match in on $ext_if proto tcp tp port 4000 rdr-to $polemon port 4000 rdr pass on $ext_if proto tcp to port 6600 -> $polemon port 6600 match in on $ext_if proto tcp tp port 6600 rdr-to $polemon port 6600 Did I miss anything? Is the anchor for ftp-proxy OK as it is now? Do I need to change something in the other pass in on... lines?

    Read the article

  • Routing table with two NIC adapters in libvirt/KVM

    - by lzap
    I created a virtual NAT network (192.168.100.0/24 network) in my libvirt and new guest with two interfaces - one in this network, one as bridged (10.34.1.0/24 network) to the local LAN. The reason for that is I need to have my own virtual network for my DHCP/TFTP/DNS testing and still want to access my guest externally from my LAN. On both networks I have working DHCP, both giving them IP addresses. When I setup NAT port forwarding (e.g. for ssh), I can connect to the eth0 (virtual network), everything is fine. But when I try to access the eth1 via bridged interface, I have no response. I guess I have problem with my routing table - outgoing packets are routed to the virtual NAT network (which has access to the machine I am connecting from - I can ping it). But I am not sure if this setup is correct. I think I need to add something to my routing table. # ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 52:54:00:B4:A7:5F inet addr:192.168.100.14 Bcast:192.168.100.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::5054:ff:feb4:a75f/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:16468 errors:0 dropped:27 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:6081 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:22066140 (21.0 MiB) TX bytes:483249 (471.9 KiB) Interrupt:11 Base address:0x2000 eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 52:54:00:DE:16:21 inet addr:10.34.1.111 Bcast:10.34.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::5054:ff:fede:1621/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:34 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:189 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:4911 (4.7 KiB) TX bytes:9 # route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 10.34.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 1002 0 0 eth0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 1003 0 0 eth1 0.0.0.0 192.168.100.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 Network I am trying to connect from is different than network the hypervisor is connected to: 10.36.0.0. But it is accessible from that network. So I tried to add new route rule: route add -net 10.36.0.0 netmask 255.255.0.0 dev eth1 And it is not working. I thought setting correct interface would be sufficient. What is needed to get my packets coming through?

    Read the article

  • why this routing configuration does not work?

    - by avs099
    I have 2 VMs in HyperV role: first is RRAS - it has 2 interfaces (both manually configured, no DHCP): 192.168.1.110 - "external" one, connected to the router 192.168.10.2 - that's internal interface which other VMs will be using as well also I added VPN connection to our main server - and it gets 192.168.2.136 IP address in 192.168.2.XXX network. And IP route is create on the server as well for this interface. second VM is called KITCHENER. It only has 1 interface 192.168.10.99 / 255.255.255.0, with default gateway set to RRAS server - 192.168.10.2 QUESTION: how can I ping "main server" - 192.168.2.1 - from the KITCHENER server when RRAS server is connected to VPN? please see screenshots with ipconfig /all, route print and ping 192.168.2.1 commands. What needs to be done to get this working? all servers are Windows 2008 R2 if that matters.

    Read the article

  • How to Configure Different Gateways for Different VLANs

    - by Bryan
    I have around 10 VLANs, and two different internet gateways. I want traffic on some VLANs to use one gateway, and traffic on other VLANs to use another gateway. (e.g. I wish to route server traffic via one gateway and desktop internet traffic down another). Is it possible to configure different default routes for different VLANs on a Dell 6224 switch? Or is their a better way of doing what I'm trying to achieve? The core switch I am using is a Dell PowerConnect 6224 switch. Currently I'm using: ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.58.3.16 which creates the default gateway for all VLANs. I did consider adding multiple routes with equal metric, and setting ACLs between the VLANs to deny access to the 'wrong' gateway, but that idea just doesn't feel right to me.

    Read the article

  • trigger script on postfix delivery errors

    - by edovino
    I'm trying to get postfix to run a script on soft (4xx) and hard (5xx) delivery errors, but I'm not sure where to start. If I understand things correctly, I could insert (pipe-based) filters in the master.cf file, there's a whole 'milter' infrastructure available, an finally I suppose I could simply grep through the mail.info logs. So - any advice? Should I go the 'handle it via master.cf' route, and if so, what daemon should I intercept? 'bounce'? The grep-the-logs route is probably simplest, but I can't help but feel that there is a better way. Any advice appreciated!

    Read the article

  • OpenVPN - client-to-client traffic working in one direction but not the other

    - by Pawz
    I have the following VPN configuration: +------------+ +------------+ +------------+ | outpost |----------------| kino |----------------| guchuko | +------------+ +------------+ +------------+ OS: FreeBSD 6.2 OS: Gentoo 2.6.32 OS: Gentoo 2.6.33.3 Keyname: client3 Keyname: server Keyname: client1 eth0: 10.0.1.254 eth0: 203.x.x.x eth0: 192.168.0.6 tun0: 192.168.150.18 tun0: 192.168.150.1 tun0: 192.168.150.10 P-t-P: 192.166.150.17 P-t-P: 192.168.150.2 P-t-P: 192.168.150.9 Kino is the server and has client-to-client enabled. I am using "fragment 1400" and "mssfix" on all three machines. An mtu-test on both connections is successful. All three machines have ip forwarding enabled, by this on the gentoo boxes: net.ipv4.conf.all.forwarding = 1 And this on the FreeBSD box: net.inet.ip.forwarding: 1 In the server's "ccd" directory is the following files: client1: iroute 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 client3: iroute 10.0.1.0 255.255.255.0 The server config has these routes configured: push "route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0" push "route 10.0.1.0 255.255.255.0" route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 route 10.0.1.0 255.255.255.0 Kino's routing table looks like this: 192.168.150.0 192.168.150.2 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 10.0.1.0 192.168.150.2 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.0.0 192.168.150.2 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.150.2 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 Outpost's like this: 192.168.150 192.168.150.17 UGS 0 17 tun0 192.168.0 192.168.150.17 UGS 0 2 tun0 192.168.150.17 192.168.150.18 UH 3 0 tun0 And Guchuko's like this: 192.168.150.0 192.168.150.9 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 10.0.1.0 192.168.150.9 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.150.9 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 Now, the tests. Pings from Guchuko to Outpost's LAN IP work OK, as does the reverse - pings from Outpost to Guchuko's LAN IP. However... Pings from Outpost, to a machine on Guchuko's LAN work fine: .(( root@outpost )). (( 06:39 PM )) :: ~ :: # ping 192.168.0.3 PING 192.168.0.3 (192.168.0.3): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 192.168.0.3: icmp_seq=0 ttl=63 time=462.641 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.3: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=557.909 ms But a ping from Guchuko, to a machine on Outpost's LAN does not: .(( root@guchuko )). (( 06:43 PM )) :: ~ :: # ping 10.0.1.253 PING 10.0.1.253 (10.0.1.253) 56(84) bytes of data. --- 10.0.1.253 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 2000ms Guchuko's tcpdump of tun0 shows: 18:46:27.716931 IP 192.168.150.10 > 10.0.1.253: ICMP echo request, id 63009, seq 1, length 64 18:46:28.716715 IP 192.168.150.10 > 10.0.1.253: ICMP echo request, id 63009, seq 2, length 64 18:46:29.716714 IP 192.168.150.10 > 10.0.1.253: ICMP echo request, id 63009, seq 3, length 64 Outpost's tcpdump on tun0 shows: 18:44:00.333341 IP 192.168.150.10 > 10.0.1.253: ICMP echo request, id 63009, seq 3, length 64 18:44:01.334073 IP 192.168.150.10 > 10.0.1.253: ICMP echo request, id 63009, seq 4, length 64 18:44:02.331849 IP 192.168.150.10 > 10.0.1.253: ICMP echo request, id 63009, seq 5, length 64 So Outpost is receiving the ICMP request destined for the machine on it's subnet, but appears not be forwarding it. Outpost has gateway_enable="YES" in its rc.conf which correctly sets net.inet.ip.forwarding to 1 as mentioned earlier. As far as I know, that's all that's required to make a FreeBSD box forward packets between interfaces. Is there something else I could be forgetting ? FWIW, pinging 10.0.1.253 from Kino has the same result - the traffic does not get forwarded. UPDATE: I've found that I can only ping certain IP's on Guchuko's LAN from Outpost. From Outpost I can ping 192.168.0.3 and 192.168.0.2, but 192.168.99 and 192.168.0.4 are unreachable. The same tcpdump behavior can be seen. I think this means the problem can't be due to ipforwarding or routing, because Outpost can reach SOME hosts on Guchuko's LAN but not others and likewise, Guchuko can reach two hosts on Outpost's LAN, but not others. This baffles me.

    Read the article

  • Routing using Linux with 2 NIC cards

    - by Kevin Parker
    Configured Clear OS to be in Gateway mode on a machine with two NIC cards. eth0:192.168.2.0/24 with ip 192.168.2.27 which is connected to a modem and thus have internet connectivity. eth1:192.168.122.0/24 with ip 192.168.122.10 which is connected to other machines in LAN through switch. LAN machines with network 192.168.122.0 is not getting internet.How can they get internet Through Clear OS gateway.I have enabled packet forwarding in clear os using "ip_forward=1" What am i missing?.Can you please help me in this. Following are the static routing i have added: on LAN machine1 with ip address 192.168.122.11 ip route add 192.168.2.0/24 via 192.168.122.10 dev eth0 ip route show 192.168.2.0/24 via 192.168.122.10 dev eth0 192.168.122.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.122.11 But still 192.168.2.0/24 network is not reachable.Where can be the problem??

    Read the article

  • how install minimum domain email piping to script in centos?

    - by Adam Ramadhan
    hello i have search google on a simple tutorial on how to make a piping email. first how does really email technically work? "stmp is a process that binds to 25, waiting for email request that goes in from another stmp process(in another server) determined by the domain MX route that will send the message to port 25 if any email goes though the MX.domain.tld" that is in a nutshell how emailing work, am i right? or there is something wrong here? second, so if im right, we need to set a SMTP server so we can receive incoming emails from MX SMTP route right? ive googled though google and found two best STMP servers from my opinion, they are EXIM and POSTFIX, can anybody give us a simple tutorial installing and setting up an email piping for a fresh installed linux/centos? example *.domain.tld -> allinonepipe.php thanks.

    Read the article

  • No internet access on Windows 7 - part 2

    - by Vnuk
    This is a continuation of my previous question. The problems started when I turned on my wireless connection for the first time. Since then, every time I boot my Windows 7, my LAN connection does not have internet access. In my previous question, I got a key answer (route delete). Now my procedure to get LAN internet connectivity (local network works fine) when I boot looks like this: Power on WLAN Disconnect LAN cable Power off WLAN Execute route delete 0.0.0.0 if 11 Connect LAN cable Now my LAN connection has internet access. Another behavior that I can't explain - while my LAN connection has no internet access, Network and Sharing center refers to it as Unknown network, with a public icon. When I go through the fore mentioned procedure, it is referred to with my home WLAN network name, with status connected, and the Unknown network disappears.

    Read the article

  • Apache Balancing by source IP

    - by Daniel
    I am using Apache's Proxy Balancer to balance one sub domain (e.g. subdomain.domain.com) to an application which is located on 2 servers. Here an extract from my Apache configuration file: <Proxy *> Order deny,allow Allow from all </Proxy> <Proxy balancer://cluster1> BalancerMember http://server1:28081 route=w1 BalancerMember http://server2:28082 route=w2 </Proxy> ProxyPass /path balancer://cluster1/path ProxyPassReverse /path balancer://cluster1/path My question is, if it's possible to decide with the source IP-address which BalancerMember should be used for the request? To e.g. Requests from 1.2.3.4 to Member 1?

    Read the article

  • Unable to access internet if wireless enabled

    - by balki
    The following is my route output. eth0 is my wired network and eth1 is my wireless network. Only wired one has access to internet. If I enable wireless, I am not able to access internet, it tries to access via eth1 and I get 404 page of the wireless router. Why does eth1 have higher preference though default is eth0 (link)? [balakrishnan@mylap ~]$ route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface default 10.26.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 10.26.0.0 * 255.255.192.0 U 1 0 0 eth0 link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 1000 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 9 0 0 eth1

    Read the article

  • Share the same subnet between Internal network and VPN Clients

    - by Pascal
    I would like to set up a configuration where VPN clients connecting to my Forefront TMG can access all the resources of my Internal network without having the to use the option "Use default gateway on remote network" on the VPN's TCP/IP Ipv4 Advanced Settings. This is important to me, since they can use their own internet while accessing my network through VPN (the security implications of this are acceptable on my cenario) My Internal network runs on 10.50.75.x, and I set up Forefront TMG to relay the DHCP of my Internal network to the VPN clients, so they get IPs from the same range as the Internal network. This setup initially works, and the VPN clients use their own internet, and can access anything that is on the internal network. However, after a while, HTTP Proxy Traffic from the Internal network starts getting routed to the IP of the RRAS Dial In Interface, instead of the IP of the Internal's network gateway. When this happens, the HTTP Proxy starts getting denied for obvious reasons. My first question is: does this happen because Forefront TMG wasn't designed to handle a cenario that I described above, and it "loses itself"? My second question is: Is there any way to solve this problem, either through configuration or firewall policies? My third question is: If there's no way that it can work with the cenario above, is there another cenario that will solve my problem, and do what I'd like it to do properly? Below are my network routes: 1 => Local Host Access => Route => Local Host => All Networks 2 => VPN Clients to Internal Network => Route => VPN Clients => Internal 3 => Internet Access => NAT => Internal, Perimeter, VPN Clients => External 4 => Internal to Perimeter => Route => Internal, VPN Clients => Perimeter Tks!

    Read the article

  • Routing based on source address in Windows Server 2008 R2

    - by rocku
    I'm implementing a direct routing load balanced solution using Windows Server 2008 R2 as back-end server. I've configured a loopback interface with the external IP address. This works, I am receiving packets with the external IP address and respond to them appropriately. However our infrastructure requires that traffic which is being load-balanced should go through a different gateway then any other traffic originating from the server, ie. updates etc. So basicly I need to route packets based on source address (external IP) to another gateway. The built-in Windows 'route' command allows routing based on destination address only. I've tried setting a default gateway on the loopback interface and mangled with weak/strong host send/receive parameters on the interfaces, however this didn't work. Is there any way around this, possibly using third party tools?

    Read the article

  • Conflicting ip routes with local table on attaching a virtual network interface

    - by user1071840
    I have an EC2 instance with these ip rules: $ sudo ip rule show 0: from all lookup local 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default I can attach an elastic network interface to it with a private IP. Say the IP of my machine is 10.1.3.12 and the IP of the interface is 10.1.1.190. As soon as I attach the interface to my machine a new entry is added to the routing policy and local routing table: sudo ip rule show 0: from all lookup local 32765: from 10.1.1.190 lookup 10003 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default $ sudo ip route show table local broadcast 10.1.1.0 dev eth3 proto kernel scope link src 10.1.1.190 local 10.1.1.190 dev eth3 proto kernel scope host src 10.1.1.190 broadcast 10.1.1.255 dev eth3 proto kernel scope link src 10.1.1.190 broadcast 10.1.3.0 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.1.3.12 local 10.1.3.12 dev eth0 proto kernel scope host src 10.1.3.12 broadcast 10.1.3.255 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.1.3.12 broadcast 127.0.0.0 dev lo proto kernel scope link src 127.0.0.1 local 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo proto kernel scope host src 127.0.0.1 local 127.0.0.1 dev lo proto kernel scope host src 127.0.0.1 broadcast 127.255.255.255 dev lo proto kernel scope link src 127.0.0.1 I can send traffic to this ENI directly from a host that can have the same IP as the host the ENI is attached to. This is where the problem starts. I ran tcpdump on the port in question and saw multiple SYNs going to the ENI with src '10.1.3.12' and destination '10.1.1.190' but didn't see even a single ACK. In my understanding if ACKs were being sent from the ENI they'd have destination as 10.1.3.12 i.e. the same as the local machine's IP and such packets will now be routed as local packets matching local routing policy: local 10.1.3.12 dev eth0 proto kernel scope host src 10.1.3.12 I'd like to send all the packets originating from 10.1.1.190 (my ENI) to go back on the same interface i.e. eth3 in this case. Contents of the nee table 10003 are: $ sudo ip route show table 10003 default via 10.1.1.1 dev eth3 I think I can do the following: I don't know if its possible but probably decrease the priority of local table so the packets match the table 10003. Use iptables to mangle these packets and update the local table route to include the mark information But I'm not sure if these are the right approaches.

    Read the article

  • How to configure postfix to dynamically choose different relayhosts?

    - by user24315
    I use my laptop at work on wireless and wired networks, at home on a wireless network, and at various other places (such as conferences, friends houses, etc). When at work I'd like postfix to use the corportate mail server to route emails. When at home I'd like it to use my personal mail server to route emails. When elsewhere I'd like to have the laptop attempt to deliver email in the normal smtp fashion. Is this possible using just postfix? Do I need something else (such as Lamson http://lamsonproject.org/, or scripts that dynamically patch my postfix configuration) when I want to do routing that depends on my current location?

    Read the article

  • Bringing the xenbr0 interface up on XEN under Ubuntu 8.04

    - by iyl
    I installed XEN on Ubuntu 8.04 using this tutorial: http://www.howtoforge.com/ubuntu-8.04-server-install-xen-from-ubuntu-repositories but after I reboot with the XEN kernel, I don't have xenbr0 device. I see that network-bridge script runs and it creates peth0 device, but not xenbr0. I have a very basic IP setup, with a single static IP defined in /etc/network/interfaces. The only unusual thing is that my hosting (1&1) gave me a netmask 255.255.255.255, so I had to add the default gateway with this script: /sbin/route add -host 10.255.255.1 dev eth0 /sbin/route add default gw 10.255.255.1 Everything else is plain vanilla Ubuntu 8.04.

    Read the article

  • OpenVPN Chaining

    - by noderunner
    I'm trying to set up an OpenVPN "chain", similar to what is described here. I have two separate networks, A and B. Each network has an OpenVPN server using a standard "road warrior" or "client/server" approach. A client can connect to either one for access to the hosts/services on that respective network. But server A and B are also connected to each other. The servers on each network have a "site-to-site" connection between the two. What I'm trying to accomplish, is the ability to connect to network A as a client, and then make connections with hosts on network B. I'm using tun/routing for all of the VPN connections. The "chain" looks something like this: [Client] --- [Server A] --- [Server A] --- [Server B] --- [Server B] --- [Host B] (tun0) (tun0) (tun1) (tun0) (eth0) (eth0) The whole idea is that server A should route traffic destined to network B through the "site-to-site" VPN set up on tun1 when a client from tun0 tries to connect. I did this simply by setting up two connection profiles on server A. One profile is a standard server config running on tun0, defining a virtual client network, IP address pool, pushing routes, etc. The other is a client connection to Server B running on tun1. With ip_forwarding enabled, I then simply added a "push route" to the clients advertising a route to network B. On server A, this seems to work when I look at tcpdump output. If I connect as a client, and then ping a host on network B, I can see the traffic getting passed from tun0 to tun1 on Server A: tcpdump -nSi tun1 icmp The weird thing is that I don't see Server B receiving that traffic through the tunnel. It's as if Server A is sending it through the site-to-site connection like it should, but server B is completely ignoring it. When I look for the traffic on Server B, it simply isn't there. A ping from Server A -- Host B works fine. But a ping from a client connected to Server A to host B does not. I'm wondering if Server B is ignoring the traffic because the source IP does not match the client IP pool that it hands out to clients? Does anyone know if I need to do something on Server B in order for it to see the traffic? This is a complicated problem to explain, so thanks if you stuck with me this far.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >